Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

May 28, 2018 by Marlowe Hood

For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," Mark Stoeckle from the Rockefeller University in New York told AFP

Who would have suspected that a handheld genetic test used to unmask sushi bars pawning off tilapia for tuna could deliver deep insights into evolution, including how new species emerge?

And who would have thought to trawl through five million of these gene snapshots—called "DNA barcodes"—collected from 100,000 animal species by hundreds of researchers around the world and deposited in the US government-run GenBank database?

That would be Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who together published findings last week sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds.

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?

"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.

For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.

The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.

That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?

Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean?

Simpler, cheaper

To understand the answer, one has to understand DNA barcoding. Animals have two kinds of DNA.

The one we are most familiar with, nuclear DNA, is passed down in most animals by male and female parents and contains the genetic blueprint for each individual.

In analysing DNA barcodes across 100,000 species, researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans

The genome—made up of DNA—is constructed with four types of molecules arranged in pairs. In humans, there are three billion of these pairs, grouped into about 20,000 genes.

But all animals also have DNA in their mitochondria, which are the tiny structures inside each cell that convert energy from food into a form that cells can use.

Mitochondria contain 37 genes, and one of them, known as COI, is used to do DNA barcoding.

Unlike the genes in nuclear DNA, which can differ greatly from species to species, all animals have the same set of mitochondrial DNA, providing a common basis for comparison.

Mitochondrial DNA is also a lot simpler, and cheaper, to isolate.

Around 2002, Canadian molecular biologist Paul Hebert—who coined the term "DNA barcode"—figured out a way to identify species by analysing the COI gene.

"The mitochondrial sequence has proved perfect for this all-animal approach because it has just the right balance of two conflicting properties," said Thaler.

'Neutral' mutations

On the one hand, the COI gene sequence is similar across all animals, making it easy to pick out and compare.

On the other hand, these mitochondrial snippets are different enough to be able to distinguish between each species.

"It coincides almost perfectly with species designations made by specialist experts in each animal domain," Thaler said.

In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans.

What they saw was a lack of variation in so-called "neutral" mutations, which are the slight changes in DNA across generations that neither help nor hurt an individual's chances of survival.

In other words, they were irrelevant in terms of the natural and sexual drivers of evolution.

A new DNA study found that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago

How similar or not these "neutral" mutations are to each other is like tree rings—they reveal the approximate age of a species.

Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?

Darwin perplexed

Environmental trauma is one possibility, explained Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University.

"Viruses, ice ages, successful new competitors, loss of prey—all these may cause periods when the population of an animal drops sharply," he told AFP, commenting on the study.

"In these periods, it is easier for a genetic innovation to sweep the population and contribute to the emergence of a new species."

But the last true mass extinction event was 65.5 million years ago when a likely asteroid strike wiped out land-bound dinosaurs and half of all species on Earth. This means a population "bottleneck" is only a partial explanation at best.

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.

And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.

"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."

The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.

The Tasmanian tiger was doomed long before humans began hunting the enigmatic marsupial, scientists said Tuesday, with DNA sequencing showing it was in poor genetic health for thousands of years before its extinction.

What is a species? Biologists—and ornithologists in particular—have been debating the best definition for a very long time. A new commentary published in The Auk: Ornithological Advances proposes a novel concept: that ...

Recommended for you

Past studies have found that a variety of complex networks, from biological systems to social media networks, can exhibit universal topological characteristics. These universal characteristics, however, do not always translate ...

Metasurfaces are two-dimensional (2-D) metamaterials that can control scattering waves of a light beam. Their applications include thin-sheet polarizers, beam splitters, beam steerers and lenses. These structures can control ...

The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) was launched on April 18 of last year with the primary objective of discovering transiting planets smaller than Neptune around stars bright enough for spectroscopic investigations ...

A pair of researchers at Purdue University has found a way to use a diatomic Ni-Ni catalyst to synthesize cyclopentenes. In their paper published in the journal Science, You-Yun Zhou and Christopher Uyeda describe their method ...

Photocatalysts – materials that trigger chemical reactions when hit by light – are important in a number of natural and industrial processes, from producing hydrogen for fuel to enabling photosynthesis.

Neutron stars are among the densest-known objects in the universe, withstanding pressures so great that one teaspoon of a star's material would equal about 15 times the weight of the moon. Yet as it turns out, protons—the ...

Can the theory postulated by Carl Sagan in one of his "Updates" to the original Cosmos series, created 10 years after the series began, when he offered his boxed DVD set, before he died, now become considered, as an alternative to spontaneous generation and some aspects of evolution? That theory is that life exists in the universe and is "seeded" via comets on habitable worlds, which then evolve from that point, given the conditions. If true is this intentional via aliens? Wow...

Bob, it would be more accurate to say that these experiments refine our knowledge of how evolution works. Science is always changing and adapting as new technology allows us to redefine and reexamine old assumptions. There are never "Final Conclusions". Just the opportunity for your life's hard work to be mocked by future lecturing college instructors.

Joe, the problem with panspermia is? Where is it? Why is it not detectable today? Or in the fossil records? Why does all modern life trace beck genetically to a singular event billions of years ago, when chemistry became biology?

Mike this research actually makes things worse for the stuporstitious believers in holy babble. The Theoretical basis of evolution as a science is anathema to all faith-based religious belief. Refining the evidence for evolution detracts from genesis based claims of a single, creation event 6,000 years ago. If gospel is wrong about provable facts? How can you justify any of it?

"The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

This was a single study. Not necessarily corroborated with any others.But you could still generally assume -

Environmental trauma is one possibility, explained Jesse Ausubel,...

In this case, what would be the "trauma" event? Are there any mitigating coincidentals?Are any grouping of a species evolving rapidly enuff to keep up with an evolving environment?Ergo, this study is, at best, only a hypothesis...Here's an additional speculation for y'all - autophagy...

A clear distinction of species can be explained by the fact that there were more species 100,000-200,000 years ago and there was no such clear distinction. But mating took place in more similar species, and somehow, some species mated more often, which gradually led to their isolation from diversity.Compared to the gradation of the color spectrum - you can smoothly switch from one color to a color, but you can also combine certain colors and simplify the whole spectrum to a few basic ones.I hope you understand me, given my English.

This study seems to subvert evolutionary theory in two respects. First, it shows a clear delineation between species. And second, it has almost all species being created at the same time.This sounds more like Creationism than Darwinism. Not every single species created 7,000 years ago. Just almost every single species created 200,000 years ago.

Also, they've disproven the existence of fossils. Oh wait, no they haven't! Damn. I guess we can go back to calling them "Satan's Gaslights" then.

The planet was obviously seeded by extraterrestrial beings. Google the news about the US aircraft carrier that was shadowed recently by a white tic-tac shaped UFO, and meditate on it some

FOSSILS

Sudden appearance of life seems to validate a Creation event. When the timelines for carbon dating are adjusted and calibrated for non-linear decay it fits the Genesis model nicely.

LOL seems as though another verbal war has begun, or is about to, in physorg.

@leetennant - thank you for reminding us about the FOSSILS. I am fairly certain that the scientists who came up with this 100k - 200k years conclusion had also accounted for the previous dinosaur age that, fortunately for us, came to a terrible end. But it was considered fact, that the demise of the dinosaurs was a contributing factor for the survival and evolution of small mammals who could not make any headway in their ability to roam the earth and its environs at will, all because of the huge lumbering giants whose very footsteps could crush the little guys and their lair.While I don't necessarily accept the 6-day Creation cycle (I don't believe that the Creator was impatient and in a great hurry to create smart organic Matter only within a time limit of 6 Earth days), I DO believe that the Creator had in Mind to repopulate the Earth with animals who could eat the plants that --CONTINUED--

--CONTINUED-- had been formerly eaten by the giant creatures that had evolved from the single-cells that He had created in the Seas. It is the plants, vegetation, trees, etc. that draw their nourishment directly from the chemicals in the earth. Animals can't do that and so, there had to BE small animals to eat the plants. The ape-like animals such as Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Australopithecus and others - were all experimental models. Each one failed to live up to what the Creator had in Mind as to that particular smart Mammal who would eventually be dominant over the whole Earth.Without boring you to death with specifics, I shall only say that the creation of the animals, and then Man (Homo Sapiens) within a few thousand years of each other seems to be right on the money. And why not? Scientists have been trying to do the same thing: creating something from nothing. Big EPIC FAIL. And they will continue to fail.

^^^^So, what you are saying is that the 'creator' was completely crap, and had to keep wiping stuff out until he managed to get it right? Sounds like crap to me. Particularly given the ~ 65 Ma gap between dinosaurs and humans. Still, if it helps you sleep at night....................

And some people seem to be getting confused here about what the report is, and isn't, saying. Which is hardly surprising if your scientific education comes from a cherry picked bunch of middle eastern bronze age story telling.What is more important is the genetic difference between certain species. Take a human and a duck. Or a chimp and a chicken. When does the DNA say that they last shared a common ancestor? Trust me, it isn't 200 000 years ago!

Well not so fast ; Let me explain in detail (first part ). The most commonly used barcode region for animals is a segment of approximately 600 base pairs of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome oxidase I (COI or COX1). Which has large variation between different species yet a relatively small amount of variation within the same species. So the `research committees` choses certain genes for barcoding purposes to identify individual species . For animals and many other eukaryotes, the mitochondrial COI gene is chosen for barcoding .The combined effect of higher mutation rates and more rapid sorting of variation usually results in divergence of mtDNA sequences among species and a comparatively small variance within species. A 658-bp region of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI or COX1) gene was proposed as a potential 'barcode'. Please continue 2nd part

Second part : The FLAW in this study is caused by : A- Mutation rate is different in each and every bp (base pair) of the COI gene and this mutation rate is SAME in every animal species in other words number 325 bp (base pairs mutation rate ) in a given generation time period has only 4 choices ( A\T\C\G ) and this changes –REPEATEDLY - . B- Conserved mutations preserved for ` optimum function of COI gene certain base pairs –has to be the same- and fixed- ( meaning no coding variability allowed because that variability is NOT COMPATIBLE WITH FUNCTION OF THAT GENE and life –meaning lethal- C- COI gene has total, 255 variable sites and 403 conserved sites . So we have only 255 variable sites changing in between ( A\T\C\G ) REPEATEDLY IN ANY SPECIES OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS like a `Cycle of a clock` so you can `NOT` determine the beginning or end of any species as a life form – period .

Apparently plants have not been affected in the same evolutionary way, since several species have remained unchanged for millions of years.

It would be interesting to know if the researchers have tested New Zealand's tuatara - an ancient lizard of a line thought to be extinct, or the ceolacanth thought to have been extinct for 65 million years.

Yep, these comments are titanium layered proof of my contention, STUPID DESIGN is to blame for all these big brains as the dead-end of evolution!

"[Psychopaths] perceive themselves as superior beings in a hostile world in which others are competitors for power and resources. They feel it is the optimum thing to do to manipulate and deceive others in order to obtain what they want."

@stevekandoPlants, trees, vegetation are able to undergo changes (evolving) according to their environmental situation and their need of protection from predation. I have some plants in my backyard that attract ants when it is aphid season. The ants eat the aphids and everyone is happy.You should be able to connect with Stoeckle and Thaler by email if available. Humans are probably genetically connected to lizards and birds also, but by a very small percentage since they are not mammals. I think that we share DNA with cats (felines) by 90%. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

What is more important is the genetic difference between certain species.

Of course. But while there IS a difference (in varying percentages between species, I believe (and so do many environmentalists and animal-lovers) that our differences are not quite as important as are our similarities. Other than the fact that humans share certain physical traits with animals, such as two eyes, two ears, a nose, mouth, teeth, 4 appendages, a heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, gut, consciousness in varying degrees, we are dependent on each other - for companionship, food, travel (horses, camels) and even protection. We are NOT all that different. And the DNA was in the clay.

Take a human and a duck. Or a chimp and a chicken. When does the DNA say that they last shared a common ancestor?

Chimps and humans are said to be closely related. It is also claimed that our human ancestors left Africa and met up and mated with Neanderthalensis. My DNA says that I am less than 1% Neanderthal, and you may also be around that percentage. But I have NO sub-saharan African in my DNA. Maybe we didn't come out of Africa after all? Ducks and chickens are birds. Birds are said to have descended from a lizard/dinosaur specie. They aren't mammals, therefore their DNA is far removed from mammalian DNA/RNA. Although it would have been nice to have wings like eagles and not need to buy an airline ticket. ;)

^^^^So, what you are saying is that the 'creator' was completely crap, and had to keep wiping stuff out until he managed to get it right? Sounds like crap to me. Particularly given the ~ 65 Ma gap between dinosaurs and humans. Still, if it helps you sleep at night....................

says jonesdave

It appears that you haven't taken into consideration the differences in the amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere 66 Ma, or the number of volcanoes and activity, or the shifting of tectonic plates and the tearing apart of the continent of Pangaea. There were many factors in Nature that were not conducive to having living mammals and then humans created within the gap between 66Ma and 200,000 years ago. It had to be the right time and the right conditions. I don't think that YOU would enjoy living on a planet with an atmosphere that had far less than the 21% Oxygen that we enjoy today.

does this article make the implicit assumption that the older the species the more genetically diverse it should be? It is not clear to me whether it does, but IF it does then I presume the implicit flawed reasoning goes something vaguely like; the longer a species has existed, the greater the amount of time there has been for mutations to cumulate thus the greater the genetic diversity in that species?If so, that is flawed because that works BOTH ways for, the longer a species has existed, the greater the amount of time there has been for natural selection to weed out all but the very few of the most favorable mutations thus the LESSER the genetic diversity in that species!

"In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans"

The simplest answer to this apparently surprising result is that what they perceived as a "telltale sign" of that wasn't any such "telltale sign" and thus it is simply NOT true that "almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans".

from the article;

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle."It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

No, the simplest interpretation is that the researcher's interpretation is wrong (their claimed "telltale sign" isn't) and that many animals alive at that point did NOT arose relatively recently.

I think this whole study is probably badly flawed especially as the fossil record PROVES that many if not most (and I could be wrong but I am pretty sure it is most) of the species living today existed WAY longer than the human species! How would they explain that one?Surely, the fossil record should be regarded as a much more reliable indicator of a species age than any mere genetic analysis alone!

It appears that you haven't taken into consideration the differences in the amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere 66 Ma, or the number of volcanoes and activity, or the shifting of tectonic plates and the tearing apart of the continent of Pangaea. There were many factors in Nature that were not conducive to having living mammals and then humans created within the gap between 66Ma and 200,000 years ago. It had to be the right time and the right conditions. I don't think that YOU would enjoy living on a planet with an atmosphere that had far less than the 21% Oxygen that we enjoy today.

If the 'creator' was that good, why couldn't the conditions be made suitable? And there was plenty of O2 around in the Cretaceous. And Pangaea had long since broken up. The continents were similar to today.Then, having waited all that time, this useless creator bases his ultimate design on > 98% chimp DNA. Lazy bastard.

Suppose the fossil record shows that a species has been around for 100 times longer than humans but according to the researcher's assumptions for this article of how genes should change, the genetic analysis indicates the species has been around for only about as long as humans! Should we then conclude the physical evidence in the fossil record is wrong (absurd!) or should we conclude the researcher's assumptions for this article is wrong and thus the genetic analysis, if interpreted correctly, does NOT indicates the species has been around for only about as long as humans? It seems obvious to me we should conclude the latter. That is why I said the fossil record should be regarded as a much more reliable indicator of a species age than any mere genetic analysis alone although genetic analysis might still be useful to give us clues to the species's age when the species's age isn't clear from the fossil record due to a rarity of fossilization of that species.

@humy(article ...)to trawl through five million of these gene snapshots—called "DNA barcodes"—collected from 100,000 animal species by hundreds of researchers around the world and..."

The researchers don't seem to have derived the DNA barcodes from FOSSILS, but instead from living animal species AND Homo Sapiens. That 100k modern animal species, as well as humans having basically the same or similar DNA material, which indicates that their existences began within a relatively shorter timeframe than we were led to believe, is obviously a source of confusion and possible irritation to the many who are exclusively loyal to Darwinism. I don't blame you for reacting to the article and the news that runs counter to what you (and so many others) had been taught and learned to accept as unequivocal fact. Of course, this is a science site, and the researchers performed scientific functions/experiments. But it still is YOUR choice to accept the results or not accept.

Darwin loyalists - take heart. Modern animal species could not have thrived and flourished in the world as it was 66Ma. However, if there had been similar species who somehow survived the dinosaur age, they would have had to adapt to the conditions or die off. Perhaps many of the FOSSILS were of animals who could not adapt through their nuclear and Mtcondrial DNA changes. Species do evolve to adapt to changes in conditions. Given the best circumstances, at least some of them might have survived all the way up to modern times.

@humyThe researchers don't seem to have derived the DNA barcodes from FOSSILS,

OBVIOUSLY. Yes, they didn't. I knew that.

. That 100k modern animal species, as well as humans having basically the same or similar DNA material, which indicates that their existences began within a relatively shorter timeframe than we were led to believe,

No, it doesn't indicate that. They are basing that conclusion on baseless and/or flawed assumptions about how genes change over time and it is those assumptions I question, NOT the DNA evidence which is unquestionably whatever it is found to be and I assume to be perfectly sound. And the fact they didn't look at the fossils is precisely my point; they SHOULD have done! They should have looked at BOTH the fossil AND the DNA evidence and, since the fossil evidence is the far more reliable indicator of the age, if they think the two contradict then their interpretation of the DNA evidence is obviously what is wrong, NOT the fossils

@humyNot every FOSSIL contains enough viable nuclear and MtDNA/RNA, especially from 66Ma, to make an educated guess as to its age and its environment and living conditions. It seems that the researchers were able to come up with the 100k - 200k figures as the beginning or starting point of their age timelines only because of current DNA technology. But HOW do you KNOW that they did not bother to check the FOSSILS? Could it be that it was because they already KNEW the ages of the FOSSILS as being ~66Ma? Perhaps the researchers were far more interested in the current species of today and whether or not those species were derived from animals with close similarities who had existed millions of years ago but were now extinct, OR they realized that today's life forms, including man, could not have changed so drastically within the timeframes when they allegedly had evolved from an ancestral melting-pot of environmentally or climate-generated changes to their cells.--CONTINUED--

--CONTINUED--Furthermore, their timeframe of 100k - 200k does have a gap of 100,000 years, in which a lot of evolution could have occurred. But such possible changes, depending on their severity (good or bad) should not have been too drastic. Cats did not become dogs and vice-versa even though they share a certain percentage of DNA. Cats remained as cats, in spite of evolving in size and other cellular changes. Incidentally, the Creator of whose existence you (and others) perpetually challenge, just happens to BE a Scientist, and the Original One at that. The Creator experiments with life forms that He created, and then allows to evolve. The Earth evolves also and all that is in it. "Religionists" who don't believe that evolution occurs if it is warranted by nature, are foolish. And as I have already said, I don't accept/agree with the 6-day creation cycle. But that's me.I will give the researchers a chance and see what else they come up with that I can agree with.

Oy. The research paper is reviewing a contentious area [ https://en.wikipe...arcoding ], so it is problematic to analyse and it is also terribly written for doing precisely that.

First, obviously non-evolutionists and panspermists will find no support in this paper as it is based on and confirm evolution and reject other claims. It is for example limited to animals.

Second, basing sweeping generalisations about species and eukaryote species on a medium long barcode - biased to provide a convenient amount of recent variation - region on a single adaptive gene in non-germ, multiple lineage replicating mitochondria is difficult. I was on a symposium yesterday where the suggestion was to use the core gene set of all sufficiently clean sequence material, in which case important differentiation do not map well to taxonomy such as "species", it happens at different distances from the leaves in the phylogenetic tree of sequences.

[ctd] As per above, I cannot find that the authors discuss other species than animals [ https://phe.rocke...uced.pdf ]. But at the same time they make their claim solely based on parsimony. Which we use only when we have insufficient data or model.¨

Since the paper is so poorly laid out, it is hard to make a simple analysis without reconstructing their models. It is true that the human mitochondrial coalescent is 200 kyrs old [ https://en.wikipe...rial_Eve ]. But we know the species is at least 1.5 times older from fossil finds, not going into the difference between the mito and the fossil species. The site saturation problem that metingunduz mentions is a possibility, it happens in general and has to be accounted for.

I am sorry I cannot be more helpful. My tip would be to discuss the paper if you have the means to do so. But to stay away from drawing other conclusions in an open area.

@humyNot every FOSSIL contains enough viable nuclear and MtDNA/RNA, especially from 66Ma, to make an educated guess as to its age and its environment and living conditions.

Err, this shows your complete ignorance of how fossils are normally dated, which is certainly NOT from DNA/RNA ! And you are obviously not following this conversation nor understand the this article in the slightest because neither I nor they said anything to imply that they dated fossils from DNA/RNA ! I don't know where the hell you got that from!You need to study just a bit about the science before commenting on it.You may get started with these two links explaining how fossils are normally dated;

Cats did not become dogs and vice-versa even though they share a certain percentage of DNA.

and there is no scientific theory that says one evolved from the other.And the reason why they share most of their DNA is because they share a common ancestor, NOT that one evolved from the other. They evolved from that common ancestor.You clearly have complete ignorance on evolution theory.Again, You really need to study just a bit about the science before commenting on it else all you will be doing is exposing you complete ignorance and that will certainly NOT convincing us of your religion!Please bother to actually STUDY the theory you criticize before commenting on it so at least you know what that theory is.

@humyFrom your first link: "…There are two main methods determining a fossils age, relative dating and absolute dating. Relative dating is used to determine a fossils approximate age by comparing it to similar rocks and fossils of known ages. Absolute dating is used to determine a precise age of...."

While both methods have their merits, relative dating results ONLY in an approximate age of the FOSSIL in question. Comparing for similarities in age with non-organic material such as rocks AND other FOSSILS, if found surrounded by inorganic rocky material, is far from the quest for greater accuracy, especially when attempting to compare FOSSILS that are known to BE millions or billions of years old with relatively more recent animals and humans. The recent work that the researchers have done has nothing to do with millions of years old FOSSILS. The age of the FOSSILS that are set in rocky material is of no great consequence to these new findings.--CONTINUED--

--CONTINUED--Being that I believe in Evolution, I have to qualify that with the knowledge that the Creator did NOT create a "static" Universe. Everything in the Universe changes/evolves, otherwise nothing in the Cosmos would move. Stars wouldn't form, explode and become Black Holes. As I said about Religionists who don't believe in Evolution, etc. etc.Your desire to negate any possibility of an outside Force that arrived at this planet to create a PROGRAM that could collect a certain amount of required chemicals that were advantageous to the beginning of motile life is understandable. Your indoctrination and freedom not to accept any alternative ideology as to the Beginning of Life in this planet is noted. While I don't pretend to be an expert in Evolution I do agree that it has happened and is continuing. It wasn't Mr. Darwin's doing - he only came to its realisation.I hope to continue to stay on this topic and possibly learn more from the researchers.--CONTINUED--

--CONTINUED--By the way, although I DO have enormous faith and belief in the Creator, I do NOT subscribe to any Religion. Religions are all man-made and thus Religions are fallible and subject to the whims of men and their desires whether good or evil. Homosexuality and paedophilia within the Roman Catholic Church nauseates me and my family just as any form of hypocrisy. As it is also practised within many other Religions, I choose not to attend such blasphemous structures. I have no quarrel with atheists and agnostics as long as they are not harmful to others. They can say all that they wish to say about "belief in the Creator" but that is THEIR choice and they will know the consequences one day.

[ctd] As per above, I cannot find that the authors discuss other species than animals.{...}But we know the species is at least 1.5 times older from fossil finds, not going into the difference between the mito and the fossil species.

says t.g.b.larsson

Thanks for your input, t.g.b. The FOSSILS are evidently as old as the rocks that contain them...or perhaps a bit younger. Nevertheless, they may not be the ancestors of present-day living animals, including H.Sapiens. I have discussed this conundrum with others, and there is a possibility that the huge majority of land animals who were alive in the dinosaur age were also extinguished during or after the asteroid hit at Chicxulub. If may have taken until 100k - 200kya to create NEW species to replace that which had died off. That would leave several million years in which there may have only been some plant life until conditions on Earth required the creation of new life...new species.

@humyWhile both methods have their merits, relative dating results ONLY in an approximate age of the FOSSIL in question. -

Surveillance_Egg_Unit

NONE of the links say that absolute dating doesn't give approximations thus ALL dating methods, INCLUDING relative dating of fossils give approximation and generally good ones at that so its idiotic to dismiss then as "ONLY an approximate age" just because you don't like the approximation. If a dating method gives an approximate age of a fossil of, say, one million years, with maximum error of plus or minus 10%, then the fossil is one million years old plus or minus 10% and thus wildly by far couldn't possibly be, say, less than 800,000 years.

@humyRe Approximations in Dating of Fossils. Perhaps I am just a Purist and expect far too much from Science methods. I will need to give much more leeway toward inaccuracy, whether deliberate or not, in the Dating process. Although, a 10% shortfall or overshot may not seem like very much, but to Purists it is like the difference between winning or losing the Kentucky Derby by a nose. Perhaps in the far future, the Dating process that Science employs wrt Fossils may improve 100%, thus making many of us understandably contented. For me, it is the vast difference between my childhood telescope and the HST.--CONTINUED--

Cats did not become dogs and vice-versa even though they share a certain percentage of DNA.

and there is no scientific theory that says one evolved from the other.And the reason why they share most of their DNA is because they share a common ancestor, NOT that one evolved from the other. They evolved from that common ancestor.

says humy

I apologise if I gave the impression thet I believed that dogs evolved from cats or vice versa. That would be silly of me, wouldn't it. But I was attempting to bring the idea that, as mammalian species died in the dinosaur age, many more were CREATED to replace those species who did not survive. A "created" specie could have had far more superior genetics than its similar predecessor. It, of course, would not have inherited the genes of a mother/father, even if the new specie was formed from DNA in clay. Its body would contain DNA but it would not have been born/hatched. Creation does not require birth.

I was attempting to bring the idea that, as mammalian species died in the dinosaur age, many more were CREATED to replace those species who did not survive..

There is no evidence for this. There isn't even evidence there is a 'god' to make it even possible.But there is evidence for evolution.Given that evidence for evolution and absence of evidence for the existence of a 'god', by far the simplest least assumptive explination is that they simply evolved.There is even evidence in the fossil record of certain lizard species (example; Procynosuchus) that are almost certainly the either the direct ancestor of or a close relative of the ancestor of all mammals including ourselves. If you don't believe me, read for yourself;

...Although, a 10% shortfall or overshot may not seem like very much...

Hypothetically suppose one day the estimate error was reduced to 0%. What difference would that make to you? Would that change any of your beliefs? Whether it is 10% or 0%, either way the age is still definitely millions of years old. And exactly what percentage would be just sufficient to satisfy you and why that specific figure rather than some other specific figure?

I was attempting to bring the idea that, as mammalian species died in the dinosaur age, many more were CREATED to replace those species who did not survive..

There is no evidence for this. There isn't even evidence there is a 'god' to make it even possible.But there is evidence for evolution.Given that evidence for evolution and absence of evidence for the existence of a 'god', by far the simplest least assumptive explination is that they simply evolved.

says humy

"There is no evidence for this..." Evidence is nonexistent up UNTIL it is found. Species can be created just as well as the first cells in the waters of Earth were created millions of years ago. I have NEVER SAID that Evolution has never happened. Life is not static. It adapts, changes and hopefully progresses.-CONTINUED-

--CONTINUED--I also never mentioned a "God or god(s)". I spoke about "the Creator". Gods are a manmade projection of the human mind to allay mens' fears of the unknown. The Creator Himself is an autonomous Being who does not need humans in order to exist. He does not require the mind of men to conjure Him up. He exists and has always existed.

While the life forms of Earth were continuing to evolve, those who died out were recreated in the distant future, i.e. millions of years later as long as those particular life forms had the potential to survive as conditions on the planet vastly improved. As Homo ergaster, Homo erectus and all the other Homo experimental models died out (unfit to become the dominant specie), after conditions were better for life to be created and evolve, the Creator again created a new experimental model, the Homo Sapiens specie. The skeletons of all the Homo species are available for your perusal. Have a good look.

...Although, a 10% shortfall or overshot may not seem like very much...

Hypothetically suppose one day the estimate error was reduced to 0%. What difference would that make to you? Would that change any of your beliefs? Whether it is 10% or 0%, either way the age is still definitely millions of years old. And exactly what percentage would be just sufficient to satisfy you and why that specific figure rather than some other specific figure?

says humy

Accuracy at 100% is, and should be the 'holy grail' of science (Science research still leaves a lot to be desired due to abundant errors). For me it would make a huge difference in that it would alleviate any doubt I would have about the accuracy, methods, performance and dedication of the researchers, not to mention their honesty.I have come by my beliefs after long deliberation employing logic, reason and the knowledge that mistakes in writing can be made through miscomprehension of timeframes and events.

--CONTINUED--I also never mentioned a "God or god(s)". I spoke about "the Creator". Gods are a manmade projection of the human mind to allay mens' fears of the unknown. The Creator Himself is an autonomous Being who does not need humans in order to exist. He does not require the mind of men to conjure Him up. He exists and has always existed..

I am sure the vast majority of people would say your above description of the 'Creator' is one of a 'god' by any reasonable definition of 'god'. That imaginary 'god' is not the same imaginary 'god' of many religions but it is clearly a 'god' nevertheless.And, whatever you insist on calling it, just as I asserted, there is no evidence that it exists. In contrast there is evidence of evolution thus the least assumptive and least complex hypothesis is that all living things evolved; no 'god' or 'Creator' or whatever you like to call it required.

For me it would make a huge difference in that it would alleviate any doubt I would have about the accuracy,

There is no uncertainty that a plus or minus 10% dating measurement error of a fossil being millions of years old means it IS millions of years old and not, say, just 10,000 years old.If the dating method shows the age must be somewhere between 10 million and 11 million years old, would you dismiss the whole dating method just because it doesn't give an EXACT age to the closest nanosecond and thus insist it may not be millions of years old but could be, say, 10,000 years old? If not, it shouldn't "make a huge difference" to your religious beliefs whether that error of measurement could hypothetically be reduced to zero (which is completely impossible in actuality); either way the fossil is definitely millions of years old and certainly NOT less than, say, a million.

--CONTINUED--I also never mentioned a "God or god(s)". I spoke about "the Creator". Gods are a manmade projection of the human mind to allay mens' fears of the unknown. The Creator Himself is an autonomous Being who does not need humans in order to exist. He does not require the mind of men to conjure Him up. He exists and has always existed..

I am sure the vast majority of people would say your above description of the 'Creator' is one of a 'god' by any reasonable definition of 'god'. That imaginary 'god' is not the same imaginary 'god' of many religions but it is clearly a 'god' nevertheless.And, whatever you insist on calling it, just as I asserted, there is no evidence that it exists. In contrast there is evidence of evolution thus the least assumptive and least complex hypothesis is that all living things evolved; no 'god' or 'Creator' or whatever you like to call it required.

--CONTINUED--I prefer not to indulge in semantics. My own description is perfectly sound and is not overused or subjected to profanity and insults as is the term/title "god or God".I am not commenting in this site to witness your conversion to my way of belief since it is a purely personal choice and none of my concern. I mention my belief in the Creator because of the content of the article above which coincides at a certain level with a possibility that the timeline of the age of the DNA, fossils, etc. has a relationship to the creation of the first Homo Sapiens and animals approximately 100k - 200kYA.

There is much evidence that the Creator exists, but your human eyes and mind have no ability to sense Him, or with any of your five senses. And there is a reason for this inability.

And with that I find no reason to continue this conversation on the topic with those who have never experienced the presence of the Creator and likely have no interest in such an experience.

I am not commenting in this site to witness your conversion to my way of belief since it is a purely personal choice and ....

NO, at least for me, it is NOT "a purely personal choice" because it isn't a "choice".I don't 'choose' to believe what my rational mind tells me is or at least probably is true.I just go wherever the evidence and logic takes me because I simply want to know the truth irrespective of whether I like that truth in particular and not sugarcoat any cold brutal reality to delude myself into believing happy falsities fairytales and claptrap. I always recommend learning to have the emotional strength to face brutal reality rather than learning to be emotionally weak by hiding brutal reality by deluding oneself into believing happy falsities and fairytales which I see as mentally harmful and an insult to the intellect.If everyone follows my recommendation then I guess that would be the beginning of the end of all religion.

Belief in a god or religion is a false belief for the sake of making some emotionally weak people deal with hard reality by mentally, not physically, escaping from that hard reality with happy wild delusional belief. Fortunately, many of us learn to be emotionally strong and withstand hard reality without such wild delusions. I recommend learning emotional strength as opposed to delusional belief.

Mike this research actually makes things worse for the stuporstitious believers in holy babble. The Theoretical basis of evolution as a science is anathema to all faith-based religious belief. Refining the evidence for evolution detracts from genesis based claims of a single, creation event 6,000 years ago. If gospel is wrong about provable facts? How can you justify any of it?

Wellllll, seems like you don't appreciate the conclusion that so obviously stares you in the face, friend: 90% of species are contemporaries of human beings. And there are very distinct boundaries pointing to very good support for the biblical "kind'. You get the info and then go off at a totally unrelated tangent in order to still cling to your own fairy tale of abiogenesis and darwinian evolution. The mind boggles.

I just go wherever the evidence and logic takes me because I simply want to know the truth irrespective of whether I like that truth in particular and not sugarcoat any cold brutal reality to delude myself into believing happy falsities fairytales and claptrap.

Then, you should follow the clear scientifically justifiable evidence that abiogenesis is pure fiction and darwinian evolution a nice big broad fairy tale. I think you have your suppositions mixed up.

The truth that you do not want to see is that we were created by a highly intelligent and all-powerful agent. Which means that we are accountable to that creator. You do not WANT to see this and therefore have blinded yourself to the simple truth:

Abiogenesis is dead in the water. It is IMPOSSIBLE! That leaves only special creation. You have to face that fact at some stage or the other. Better now than when it's too late to respond to the call to repentance.

If everyone follows my recommendation then I guess that would be the beginning of the end of all religion.

How interesting a conclusion!Did you consider that the very fact of your clinging to abiogenesis and darwinian evolution is in fact following a religion? Did it not strike you?

Do you know that you have the utmost incredible faith in the pronouncements of the high priests of "science" that abiogenesis is a fact? Yet there's not a sniff of any evidence that it can happen!!!! Where's the fact in that? Where's the TRUTH in that?

How can abstract entities like information arise from purely random chemical and physical processes? How does complex systems with localized sensors and broadcast alarm dispersal and signal response processes arise out of random mechanisms? It cannot because those kinds of systems require foresight, design and planning to create and test to make sure it works as intended. No amount of random playing around is going to deliver.

In contrast there is evidence of evolution thus the least assumptive and least complex hypothesis is that all living things evolved;

There is so-called "evidence for evolution" only if you CHOOSE to interpret the existing physical evidence like that, i.e. it depends on your world view, not on the facts.

Do the simple analysis of what was actually found, what was then reconstructed from that and what story was fabricated from said reconstruction and you can see any that "evidence" follows the required world view.

I just go wherever the evidence and logic takes me because I simply want to know the truth irrespective of whether I like that truth in particular and not sugarcoat any cold brutal reality to delude myself into believing happy falsities fairytales and claptrap.

Then, you should follow the clear scientifically justifiable evidence that abiogenesis is pure fiction

What scientific evidence are your referring to that abiogenesis is false? There is no such evidence.

Abiogenesis is dead in the water. It is IMPOSSIBLE!

Shouting it is impossible doesn't make it so and isn't even an 'argument'.How it could have happened has been researched and several creditable scientific hypothesis have been developed that indicate it is at least possible.

Belief in a god or religion is a false belief for the sake of making some emotionally weak people deal with hard reality by mentally, not physically, escaping from that hard reality with happy wild delusional belief. Fortunately, many of us learn to be emotionally strong and withstand hard reality without such wild delusions. I recommend learning emotional strength as opposed to delusional belief.

This is a rather sloppy attempt at an old argument which runs afoul of the genetic fallacy. If you truly want to make a positive case for god being a delusion (as you put it), then the burden is on you. Can you even come close to meeting that burden?

Suppose the fossil record shows that a species has been around for 100 times longer than humans but according to the researcher's assumptions for this article of how genes should change, the genetic analysis indicates the species has been around for only about as long as humans! ... [T]he fossil record should be regarded as a much more reliable indicator of a species age than any mere genetic analysis alone although....

What evidence do you have that the 90% figure cited in this study contradicts the fossil record? It has been estimated for years that 99% of all the Earth's species are now extinct.

This is a rather sloppy attempt at an old argument which runs afoul of the genetic fallacy.

Exactly what "genetic fallacy" are you referring to here? Elaborate please.

If you truly want to make a positive case for god being a delusion (as you put it)..

No I didn't put it like that. How can an existing god be a delusion? I assert the BELIEF in the existence of a god is a delusion.And since there is no evidence for a god but there is evidence against your particular god (evolution and old-Earth), the burden is on you to prove your god exists, not on me to prove your god doesn't exist.